The phrase “human nature” is not useful for political or policy debate, as you’d be hard pressed to find a vaguer term.
Conservatives believe people are selfish and violent, and that is a-ok, if you are wealthy, powerful, or belong to a favored class. Otherwise, they should be punished because they deserve it, not for being selfish and violent, but for being poor, or the wrong sex, the wrong color, or simply for wanting a benefit of society without being rich or conniving enough to grab it for themselves. For modern conservatives, it’s a Lord of the Flies world. Self-fulfilling prophecy, really.
Liberals believe that some people are selfish and violent and they should be controlled for the benefit of the community. That we as individuals and as a community all benefit from sharing what we have with those who have less. We might be wrong about the the ability of human beings to do what is both morally right and of benefit to everyone and to the planet, but we don’t want to join the narrow-minded ignorant greedy brutality club that conservatism has become. We’d rather be wrong.
If you are assuming that conservatism is associated with the more reptilian parts of the brain, and liberalism with the more nuanced prefrontal cortex I’d agree.
It is easier to assume we can’t change the environment, to want harsh punishment for criminals, to worry about tribalism, etc. than it is to understand the nuances of how our behavior will affect life in 10-100 years.
All politics are human nature. People seem to gravitate towards systems they feel benefit themselves. So those who can’t compete seek systems that reward that. Those who can compete seek systems that reward that or parasitize the non competitive ideologies.
While I want to disagree with the OP, and point out that most of the developed world finds modern-day American conservatism to be delusional and devoid of morality, I think really it’s an unanswerable question.
Because humans, while far from being “blank slates”, are shaped in large proportion by upbringing.
We have aggressive impulses, but also compassionate impulses. All societies try to promote the latter, but it’s not a case of “natural” versus forced behaviour; it’s simply that that behaviour is to a large degree a function of nurture.
I agree with those who say that the concept of “human nature” is far, far too vague a term to use as a basis for policy, or for describing an ideology. But I think it’s instructive to explore your examples and see what it tells us about different ideologies. I think on many of these issues you’re not really describing conservatism, but rather, Republicanism as it exists today. So let’s see where this leads us.
On the death penalty and on sentencing guidelines, if you look at facts vs. gut-level emotions, the facts tell us that death penalties tend to be associated with – and to promote – barbaric cultures, and even more importantly, the facts tell us that a justice and corrections system focused on rehabilitation instead of exacting vengeance results in a measurably lower rate of recidivism and therefore less crime in society, which is ultimately the objective.
On immigration, the facts tell us that, properly managed, immigration contributes both to economic growth and to cultural enrichment.
On health care, you’re right that “more affordable health care for me” is the primary motive, and the humanitarian objectives of UHC tend to be secondary in most people’s estimation. But that’s not what the liberal-conservative divide is on this. The liberal-conservative divide is that conservatives reject UHC even when those pesky facts rear their head again and show that it will be more affordable for them as well as everybody else – a win-win. They reject a win-win proposition because (a) they are not friendly with facts and reason and don’t trust them, and (b) their gut tells them that it can’t possibly be good if undeserving lazies get free health care, and the economics of UHC be damned.
And on the LGBT issue, the facts are that blameless people who have done nothing wrong are axiomatically, self-evidently entitled to all the same human rights as everyone else, deserve to be treated with the respect and dignity accorded to all human beings, and should not be discriminated against, persecuted, and ostracized for no reason, just because they’re different. “Ewww” factor, indeed. :rolleyes:
So ISTM that liberalism as you define it is an ideology based on a dispassionate understanding of reality, of objective facts, while conservatism as defined by much of contemporary Republicanism rejects that objective reality. Instead of truth, Republicans embrace what Stephen Colbert brilliantly defined as “truthiness” – gut beliefs and emotions, with disdain for facts. It’s no wonder that Republicans are the party of climate change denial and science funding cutbacks.
It’s probably an unpopular view around here, but I think conservatives have their own way of rising above human nature. Most notably, I believe that is displayed by their reverence for military service. I think oftentimes people who are not conservative leaning see the reverence for military service as coming from a place of brutish aggressive dominance behavior; chest thumping and what not. A conservative might look to it in terms of willingness to sacrifice one’s very life for the ideals of this country. This self sacrifice is among the highest and most revered forms of rising above human nature for many conservatives from what I can gather.
So why is it that so many prominent conservatives never served in the military themselves? Why did they pull all the strings they had access to to avoid military service, and then sanctimoniously pretend to honor the kids they sent out to die on foreign battlefields?
Several things would need to be flushed out for a serious discussion on the matter. Given the rapid fire pointed question staccato tone of your post you appear more interested in tribal jousting. On the off chance that I am misinterpreting your tone (please accept my apologies), these are the things I think would need to be flushed out:
What do we mean by “conservatives”?
What are conservative values?
Are a politician’s platform, main talking points, and issues they emphasize more indicative of the values the voting public supports or is personal adherence or lack thereof more important? For example, if a politician has a platform and record of supporting VA benefits, or giving greater preference to veterans in the federal hiring process etc. can they not be accurately described as supporting veterans?
I think the desire to risk your life for your country is nearly the epitome of human behavior. If we think part of human behavior is tribalism, that your tribe is familiar, the other tribe is foreign, you can easily be spun up that our tribe is threatened and we must defeat this other tribe before they defeat us. So, in modern times, the ones that sign up to be a part of this task are heralded by conservatives. I think liberals know a defense is necessary (“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”) and REALLY support that, but also look at the reality of the military: 99% of those that sign up will not see combat, and 99% of the combat the 1% see could have been have easily been avoided by not getting into quagmires in the first place. So to really support our troops, we would be very selective in the conflicts we get into.
Interesting post. I think it could be a whole nother debate in itself. Interestingly, and not 100% exactly along the lines of what we are discussing, but sort of tangential, is the fact that the biggest problem for the military is getting people in a mindset to kill people. For most people that come into the military it takes extensive training to be able to actually shot and kill another person, even if they are a hostile enemy. There are, however, a certain portion of soldiers who are natural killers and will shoot to kill with little training. So, at least from a military standpoint, “human nature” can vary greatly among various individuals.
I asked two questions. How is that a “rapid fire pointed question staccato tone”?
I thought I was clear that I was discussing contemporary Republicans in the contexts set out by the OP.
The questions I raised had nothing to do with “conservative values”, so it’s not clear why this is being introduced here. I’m discussing Republican behavior in the context that you raised of purported respect for the military.
It’s easy to support dying and injured kids when you’re at no risk yourself. Yet despite the ease of doing that, Republicans (as a generalization – there are certainly individual exceptions) have let the VA become an unconscionable shambles while supporting a legacy of unnecessary wars.
I don’t think pointing these things out is “tribalism”, but you’re entitled to your opinion. I have no respect for hypocrisy among Democrats, either.
Since each major party is a weird coalition the ideology of each party isn’t simple to describe. I consider the elites of each party and each major religion as people who have successfully exploited a niche for power. How sincere they are? I have no clue.
I think these points are valid. I think everyone everywhere has different ideas about what a conservative is what a liberal is etc. I’ll have to ruminate on it for a while. I wasn’t trying to slight your response to my original post, it is just that there are people who have no interest in discussing politics in a less tribal way and find it boring to discuss things the way I do(and have told me this). There’s not anything wrong with that, but I prefer having a discussion and not an argument. Not that you were being argumentative, it can be difficult sometime to discern tone in the written word.
Look north. An entire nation stridently demands universal health care never be compromised. Not because it’s good for them but because they want to know their neighbour won’t lose his house cause his kid gets sick. They demand equal coverage for everyone.
Your view is just that, your view. But an entire nation believes otherwise, and practises what they value. Same goes for immigration. Yes perhaps they all have a titch of, ‘Is it too much?’ Initially. But again, loudly and proudly they demand their government reach out and help. Not because it impacts them one way or the other, but because it reflects their values.
Perhaps conservatism better reflects American values. But not universal human values, in my opinion.
People always say this, and it’s sort of a flawed argument because it constitutes the “appeal to authority” fallacy, or more precisely, an inversion of it. “They don’t actually know anything about the reality of military service, so their perspectives on war are invalid.”
The fact is, though, that there are a lot of prominent conservatives who served in the military, at all levels of government from state to federal. And the many, many conservative veterans themselves could just as easily say, “I served my country in uniform, and I know the reality of war, and it’s the liberals who never served who want to fuck up the military.”
Trump’s evasion of the draft didn’t seem to bother the many veterans and active duty military people who voted for him.
Your assumption is incorrect. We support the death penalty because someone has committed a crime so extreme that it indicates that person is a threat to society that needs to be removed. The true “cruel and unusual punishment” lies in the fact that it takes nearly 20 years to carry out the sentence because of liberal interference with the legal process.
Another incorrect assumption. Conservatives have no issue with immigration whatsoever as long as the immigrants come in the front door through the legal process rather than sneaking over the border. This is why we support the wall as well.
Since both assumption you put up were incorrect, your argument is meaningless.
Didn’t conservatism just become a movement of opposition to dems, liberals, progressives etc. and no other operative ability or desire to do like anything at all.
This is being in touch with only one aspect of existence. It’s tribalism removed from values.
So they reduced human nature to one little thing, and now they’re dancing on the bonfire of the rest of it. This seems very out of touch with human nature.
Their reverence for military service, which appears to soar far above their reverence for, ya know, Christ, does not reflect rising above human nature (again, a meaningless term) but a glorification of hierarchy and institutionalized group male violence (see: American football). One could argue that the glorification of male self-sacrifice to protect the tribe is a commonly inculcated feature of aggressive cultures. That doesn’t make it “natural” even though it might be.
One could also argue that since young males are inherently violent, it’s best to send them off to be glorious cannon fodder for America’s never ending wars, instead of letting them stay here to destroy stuff. In which case, your case for conservative practicality might stand.